-? 


'  APR  ^'^   '91P  .--^^^ 


D 

0 

n 

^5; 

0 
5 

^- 

2 
9 

^— ; 

* 

2 

^  —  i 

1 

^^sS 

2 

-1 

3 

srp 


_Mo.  132. 

Board  of 


gi         Estimate  and  Apportionment 


/ 


CITY    OF    NE-W^    YORK 

J  Frcif'y 
COMMUNICATION   FROM  THE 


CHIEF  OF  THE  BUREAU  OF  FRANCHISES 


Transmitting  the  paper  read  before  the  National  Conference  on  City  Planning 
held  at  Toronto.  May  25-27.    1914.  upon  the 


UTILITY  OF  THE  MOTOR  BUS 

AND  MUNICIPAL  PROBLEMS  PERTAINING  TO  ITS  OPERATION 


JUNE    1.    1914 


M.  B.  Bbown  Printing  &  Binding  Co., 
37-41  Chambers  Street,  N.  Y. 


412-14-150 


Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment, 
The  City  of  New  York, 
Bureau  of  Franchises,  Room  801,  277  Broadway, 

May  28,  1914. 

Hon.  John  Purrov  Mitchel,  Mayor,  Chairman  of  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportion- 
ment: 

Sir — The  subject  of  motor  bus  transportation  has  engaged  the  attention  of  this 
Bureau  for  something  more  than  a  year,  and  pursuant  to  the  directions  of  the  Board  I 
sent  Mr.  John  A.  McCollum,  Assistant  Engineer,  to  London  and  Paris  last  summer 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a  study  of  the  operation  of  these  vehicles  in  those  cities. 
Mr.  McCollum's  report  was  presented  to  the  Board  on  November  13  of  last  year,  and 
I  am  pleased  to  say,  has  attracted  much  attention  in  the  technical  papers  both  here 
and  abroad. 

Some  few  months  ago  Mr.  McCollum  was  invited  to  present  a  paper  at  the  Sixth 
National  Conference  on  City  Planning,  which  was  held  at  Toronto  May  25-27,  1914, 
and  as  this  paper,  which  was  prepared  and  read  by  him  at  the  conference,  throws  some 
additional  light  upon  this  subject,  which  the  Board  now  has  under  consideration,  I 
am  transmitting  the  same  herewith  for  the  information  of  the  members,  and  would 
call  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  our  opinion  the  motor  bus  is  going  to  prove 
a  very  important  factor  in  transportation  facilities,  both  in  the  urban  and  suburban 
districts  of  the  City  in  the  near  future. 

Respectfully.  HARRY  P.  NICHOLS,  Engineer,  Chief  of  Bureau. 


UTILITY     OF     THE     MOTOR     BUS     AND     MUNICIPAL     PROBLEMS 
PERTAINING  TO  ITS  OPERATION. 

By  John  A.  McCollum. 
Assistant  Engineer,  Bureau  of  Franchises. 

Read    Before    the    Sixth    National    Conference    on    City    Planning,    Toronto,    May 

25-27,   1914. 


Self-propelled  vehicles  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  have  only  recently 
begun  to  attract  attention  generally  on  the  American  continent.  The  extensive  opera- 
tion of  the  motor  omnibus  in  some  parts  of  Europe,  particularly  in  London  and  other 
parts  of  England,  has  so  completely  proven  its  capabilities  of  efficient  service  that  we 
have  the  right  to  assume  it  will  be  given  a  thorough  test,  and  as  a  result  it  may 
eventually  take  an  important  place  in  the  passenger  transportation  field  in  this  country 
as  well.  Any  new  or  additional  transit  facility  is  important  from  the  standpoint  of 
city  planning.  The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  not  to  treat  of  all  the  questions  relating 
to  the  operation  of  the  motor  omnibus.  Rather,  its  aim  is  to  present  facts  sufficient  to 
show  the  efficiency  of  the  motor  bus  and  the  magnitude  of  its  present  use ;  to  suggest 
its  possible  fields  of  utility  in  this  country,  and  to  point  out  the  advantages  of  the 
independent  vehicle  and  the  problems  which  may  confront  municipalities  in  its  employ- 
ment. 

Almost  as  soon  as  the  motor  car  came  to  be  recognized  as  a  vehicle  capable  of 
endurance,  efforts  were  made  on  the  part  of  engineers  and  manufacturers  to  adapt 
its  use  to  the  carrying  of  passengers  in  the  streets  of  London.  The  streets  in  a 
large  central  area  of  that  city  are,  with  few  exceptions,  short,  narrow  and  crooked, 
and  not  adapted  to  the  operation  of  a  sufficiently  comprehensive  system  of  street 
railways  to  meet  the  demands  of  surface  passenger  traffic.  The  street  railways  being 
excluded,  this  area  promised  to  be  the  most  lucrative  field  for  the  operation  of  the 
motor  bus.  Because  of  this,  and  the  further  reason  that  a  new  form  of  transit  in 
the  streets  to  supplant  the  horse-drawn  omnibus  then  in  use  was  needed,  it  was  not 
unnatural  that  the  greatest  energy  should  be  focused  on  the  attempt  to  use  the  self- 
propelled  motor  vehicle  as  a  means  of  relief.  If,  as  a  result,  a  new  and  efficient  pas- 
senger carrying  agency  has  made  its  appearance,  more  credit  should  be  given  to  those 
who  have  made  the  London  system  possible,  than  to  any  other  group  of  individuals. 

The  date  of  the  first  appearance  of  the  horse-drawn  omnibus  in  London  is  not 
definitely  known,  but  it  is  certain  that  corporations  owning  and  operating  such  vehicles 


were  in  existence  as  early  as  1855,  and  during  tlie  year  1862  more  than  42,000.000 
passengers  were  carried  by  the  600  vehicles  of  one  company  alone.  The  maximum 
number  of  horse-drawn  vehicles  was  reached  in  1901.  In  this  year  3,736  were  licensed. 
Subsenuent  to  that  time  the  number  gradually  decreased  until  a  few  months  atjo,  when 
the  last  horse-drawn  omnibus  was  removed  from  the  streets  of  London. 

The  new  era  began  in  1901,  when  10  motor  buses  were  licensed  by  the  police. 
No  large  increase  in  numbers  took  place,  however,  until  1905,  when  241  vehicles  were 
licensed;  this  number  being  208  more  than  had  been  authorized  in  any  previous  year. 
From  that  time  down  to  the  present,  the  numbers  increased  by  leaps  and  bounds ;  the 
largest  increases  being  in  more  recent  years,  and  amounting  in  1912  to  about  1,000. 
There  are  at  present  in  London  more  than  3,000  motor-driven  buses,  which  have 
entirely  supplanted  the  horse-drawn  vehicles.  These  have  a  seating  capacity  of  34 
passengers  each ;  operate  on  regular  schedules ;  move  with  an  average  speed  somewhat 
in  excess  of  the  surface  railway  cars,  and  carry  with  regularity  and  dispatch,  at  a 
rate  of  fare  exceeding  by  only  20  per  cent,  that  of  the  street  railways,  an  aggregate 
of  676,000,000  passengers  per  annum,  a  total  greater  than  the  number  of  cash  fares  and 
transfers  collected  on  all  the  street  surface  railways  of  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan 
and  The  Bronx  in  the  City  of  New  York.  This  seems  miraculous  when  we  consider 
the  short  period  within  which  motor-driven  vehicles  have  been  developed  and  adapted 
to  this  severe  use. 

The  operating  efficiency  of  the  motor  bus  in  London  may  be  well  illustrated  by 
the  fact  that  during  seven  continuous  months  of  the  year  1913  about  2,200  motor 
buses  ran  an  average  of  117  miles  each  per  day,  or  an  aggregate  of  55,000,000  bus 
miles,  with  a  loss  of  scheduled  mileage  equal  to  only  .12  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  total. 
This  probably  exceeds  the  efficiency  of  many  street  railway  systems.  In  Paris  there 
are  more  than  1,000  vehicles  of  a  type  unlike  those  in  London,  operating  under  differ- 
ent conditions,  but  performing  nevertheless  an  efficient  passenger  service.  New 
motor  bus  routes  are  being  established  daily  in  European  cities.  Some  are  being 
added  to  street  railway  systems  and  are  designed  to  supplement  the  railway  service  by 
extension  into  districts  where  the  traffic  does  not  warrant  the  permanent  investment 
of  the  large  sums  necessary  for  the  operation  of  a  railway.  Thus  transit  facilities 
arc  furnished  to  communities  which  would  otherwise  be  neglected  for  many  years 
to  come. 

Conditions  in  New  York. 
New  York  is  probably  the  only  American  city  in  which  the  horse-drawn  omnibus, 
regularly  operating  upon  a  fixed  route,  was  used  to  any  extent  up  to  the  time  of 
the  introduction  of  motor  vehicles.  However,  the  lines  operated  on  Fifth  Avenue 
and  other  thoroughfares  by  the  Fifth  Avenue  Coach  Company,  while  forming  a  neces- 
sary part  of  the  passenger  facilities  of  the  city,  were  used  largely  for  sightseeing, 
and  for  this  reason  were  not  looked  upon  as  a  transportation  feature  worthy  of  as 
serious   consideration   as   the   more  efficient   street   railway.     This  company,   keeping 


pace  with  the  introduction  of  the  motor  bus  abroad,  has  now  in  operation  more  than 
100  motor  vehicles  which  carry  90,000  passengers  each  per  annum,  at  a  fare  double 
that  charged  on  the  street  railways.  These  vehicles  are  now  generally  considered 
to  be  a  desirable  means  of  transit,  and  they  have  during  the  past  two  years  yielded 
a  profit  to  the  operators.  Comparison  of  the  operating  statistics  of  this  company 
with  those  of  the  street  railways  operating  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  shows  that 
the  average  daily  mileage  of  each  surface  railway  car  is  about  one-third  greater  than 
the  average  daily  mileage  of  the  motor  bus,  and.  that  the  average  speed  of  the  motor 
bus  is  slightly  greater  than  the  average  speed  of  the  railway  car.  The  efficiency  of 
the  motor  omnibus  as  a  passenger  vehicle  having  been  proven,  companies  have  been 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  service  in  New  York  and  for  the  initiation  of 
operation  in  several  other  cities.  Manufacturers  of  motor  vehicles  and  motor  car 
bodies  have  noted  the  development  and  are  now  directing  their  attention  toward  the 
production  of  vehicles  particularly  adapted  to  this  service. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year  1913,  the  laws  applying  to  stage  lines  in  the  city  of 
New  York  were  such  that  the  only  existing  company  within  the  city  had,  and  would 
continue  to  have,  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  omnibus  business  unless  amendments 
were  effected  by  the  legislature.  Obligations,  which  in  many  cases  would  be  impossible 
to  fulfill,  were  required  by  the  law  of  new  companies,  while  practically  no  conditions 
were  imposed  on  the  existing  corporation.  A  bill  designed  to  correct  this  inequality 
was  therefore  drafted  by  the  city  and  introduced  in  the  legislature  during  the  session  of 
1913.  This  bill  subsequently  became  a  law,  though  it  was  bitterly  opposed  by  the 
railway  interests  on  the  ground  that  motor  bus  operation  would  open  the  door  to 
general  competition  and  diminish  the  volume  of  their  business.  The  law  now  subjects 
all  stage  or  omnibus  companies  seeking  operating  authority  to  the  same  procedure 
as  applicants  for  franchises  of  any  other  character,  and  leaves  entirely  with  the  city 
the  right  to  impose  such  terms  and  conditions  as  it  sees  fit.  The  only  law  under  which 
such  companies  may  be  incorporated  dates  back  to  1854.  While  this  is  applicable  to 
stage  or  omnibus  companies,  it  presents  some  difficulties  which  may  be  overcome  by 
future  amendments. 

During  the  time  action  on  this  bill  was  pending,  or  within  a  few  months  after  the 
law  took  effect,  three  companies  were  incorporated  to  operate  stage  or  omnibus  lines 
in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan.  Each  of  these  companies  and  the  existing  operating 
company  presented  to  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  .Apportionment  applications  for 
franchises  to  operate  routes  aggregating  in  length  more  than  150  miles.  Since  the 
presentation  of  these  applications,  the  Bureau  of  Franchises  of  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  has  devoted  a  great  deal  of  time  and  study  to  the  situation.  Many 
of  the  routes  of  the  several  applicants  are  identical  and  some  parallel,  in  the  same 
street,  the  lines  of  existing  street  railways.  Questions  have  therefore  arisen :  First, 
as  to  the  advisability  of  granting  motor  bus  franchises  on  existing  street  railway  routes, 
thereby  permitting  general  competition  between  the  motor  bus  and  railway  facilities; 
and  second,  as  to  the  wisdom  of  authorizing  the  operation  of  more  than  one  motor 


Iius  company  on  the  same  route,  thus  opening  the  way  to  competition  between  different 
motor  bus  companies  themselves.  These  questions  have  served  to  delay  final  action 
upon  the  applications,  but  a  tentative  form  of  franchise  is  now  being  prepared,  reserving 
to  the  city  the  necessary  control  of  operation.  In  addition  to  the  three  mentioned,  one 
company  has  been  formed  and  has  made  application  for  franchise  rights  to  operate  in 
a  suburban  district  in  the  Borough  of  Queens.  Other  companies  are  being  organized 
to  operate  routes  in  the  outlying  districts. 

Characteristics  of  the  Motor  Bus. 

There  are  two  characteristics  of  the  motor  bus  which  distinguish  it  from  every 
other  public  transportation  facility.  The  first  is  flexibility;  that  is,  flexibility  of 
vehicle  movement  and  flexibility  of  route.  Because  of  this  feature  the  vehicle  re- 
sponds quickly  to  operating  requirements  and  to  traffic  conditions ;  e.g.,  passengers 
may  enter  or  leave  buses  at  the  side  of  the  roadway  without  risk  or  danger  of 
crossing  dense  vehicular  traffic ;  delays  to  other  motor  cars  do  not  result  from 
breakdown  either  of  a  motor  bus  or  any  other  vehicle,  and  daily  or  less  frequent 
changes  of  route  may  be  made  to  comply  with  traffic  conditions.  All  of  these  are 
advantages  not  to  be  found  in  any  car  confined  to  rails. 

The  second  distinguishing  characteristic  is  its  independence  of  extraneous  equip- 
ment, such  as  expensive  and  delicate  power  generating  and  distributing  systems  or 
expensive  track  equipment.  The  railway  investment  must,  in  a  large  measure,  in- 
crease in  the  same  ratio  as  the  length  of  the  track,  while  the  motor  bus  investment 
grows  only  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  vehicles  employed  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  in  proportion  to  the  daily  vehicle  mileage.  The  importance  of  this  feature 
is  shown  by  the  comparison  of  the  capitalization  of  the  street  railways  in  the 
Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx  and  the  municipally  owned  and  operated 
surface  railways  in  London  with  the  largest  omnibus  undertaking  in  that  city.  How- 
ever, the  ratios  given  serve  no  purpose  as  a  basis  for  comparison  between  other 
existing  or  proposed  operations.  The  number  of  passengers  carried  in  the  year  1912 
by  the  London  railway  was  about  the  same  as  the  number  carried  by  its  omnibus 
system.  In  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx  the  total  number  of  passengers  paying  cash 
fares  and  presenting  transfers  exceeded  by  about  20  per  cent  the  number  carried 
by  the  London  omnibus  system.  The  aggregate  lengths  of  route  operated  were  about 
148  miles  by  London  railways,  about  230  miles  by  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx  railways 
and  more  than  300  miles  by  the  London  motor  buses.  Yet  at  the  close  of  1912  the 
London  railway  investment,  less  the  accumulated  sinking  funds,  was  $53,000,000; 
the  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx  railways'  capital  was  $190,000,000,  with  an  appraised 
property  value  of  $166,000,000;  while  the  amount  of  capital  employed  by  the  omnibus 
company,  as  evidenced  by  its  outstanding  securities,  was  only  $15,500,000,  including 
an  increase  during  the  year  of  $5,000,000  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  funds  for 
additional  facilities,  the  benefit  of  which  will  accrue  in  subsequent  years.  Thus  we 
find   that   the   London   railway   invcstm'cnt   is   about   i'/i   times  that   of  the  omnibus. 


8 

The  capitalization  of  the  street  railways  in  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx  is  more  than 
12  times  and  their  appraised  value  is  almost  9  times  as  great  as  the  capital  used  for 
London  omnibuses.  Five  per  cent  profit  upon  the  capital  of  the  railways  of  Manhattan 
and  The  Bronx  would  equal  more  than  13  cents  for  each  car  mile  operated.  If  in 
the  comparisons  just  made  the  route  mileage  of  the  motor  buses  had  been  either 
more  or  less,  the  capital  needed  would  be  the  same,  so  long  as  the  number  of  vehicles 
and  vehicle  miles  operated  did  not  change.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  route  mileage 
of  the  railway  were  increased,  then  the  capital  required  would  be  greater,  though 
the  number  of  cars  operated  or  car  miles  run  remained  the  same. 

Flexibility  and  independence  of  movement  are  features  which  could  not  be 
considered  heretofore  in  planning  transit  systems,  and  they  suggest  advantages  of  the 
motor  bus  over  other  transportation  facilities.  They  make  possible  the  operation 
by  the  same  equipment  of  a  diversity  of  routes,  changing  during  the  different  periods 
of  the  day  or  during  the  different  days  of  the  week  to  correspond  to  the  desires 
of  the  traveling  public,  thereby  obtaining  maximum  service  of  each  unit.  Thus,  in 
performing  the  more  economical  operation,  each  vehicle  gives  a  more  efficient  public 
service.  In  this  respect  the  motor  bus  would  make  an  ideal  "feeder"  to  rapid  'ransit 
railways  because  of  its  ability  to  immediately  adjust  its  operation  to  conform  to  new 
directions  of  traffic  made  necessary  by  new  facilities.  It  may  be  possible  lo  provide 
by  the  motor  bus  transit  facilities  in  many  communities  where  no  relief  could  be  had 
for  years  to  come,  were  it  not  for  such  a  flexible  free-moving  vehicl';.  Whether  a 
community  is  to  have  service  will  not  depend  so  much  upon  the  measure  of  invest- 
ment risk  as  upon  whether  or  not  enough  traffic  can  be  induced  at  a  sufficient  fare 
to  pay  operating  expenses,  plus  an  acceptable  margin  of  profit.  If  insufficient  profit 
results,  the  operator  will  withdraw  the  vehicles  and  look  elsewhere  for  a  more 
profitable  field.  With  the  element  of  investment  risk  so  largely  removed,  no  doubt 
many  will  be  induced  to  invest  in  the  business  without  having  sufficient  understanding 
of  its  meaning,  resulting  in  the  usual  number  of  f,naiicinl  failures  under  such  con- 
diti  ns. 

Cost  of  Service. 
The  ultimate  test  of  the  motor  bus  must,  of  course,  be  the  cost  of  the  service 
to  be  rendered.  This  will  include  the  expense  incident  to  the  operation,  sinking  funds 
to  provide  for  depreciation  and  interest  or  profit  on  capital  invested.  So  much  of 
what  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  possible  uses  of  the  motor  bus  depends  upon  the 
cost  that  it  should  be  here  considered.  We  have  reason  to  believe,  judging  from  what 
has  been  accomplished  in  London,  that  the  operating  cost,  however  high  it  may  now 
be,  will  diminish  as  better  vehicles  are  produced  and  more  is  learned  of  the  operating 
economies.  The  cost  per  vehicle  or  scat  mile  is  not  the  only  item  to  consider  in 
estimating  whether  a  particular  operation  will  be  profitable.  The  capabilities  and 
variety  of  possible  service  of  the  independent  vehicle  are  such  that  its  present 
apparently  high   cost   of   service    may    be    more    than    offset   by   its   earning  power. 


Accurate  data  with  respect  to  the  cost  of  mechanical  traction  on  roads  is  difficult 
or  impossible  to  obtain.  There  are  so  many  varying  conditions  that  in  all  probability 
only  the  most  general  estimate  can  be  made  for  given  conditions.  Without  quoting 
figures,  the  following  general  comparisons  may  be  made  between  the  operating  ex- 
pense of  the  largest  existing  motor  bus  undertakings  and  that  of  the  street  railways : 
In  London,  where  the  operation  is  skillfully  managed,  where  the  pavements  are 
kept  in  excellent  repair  and  where  the  improvement  in  the  type  and  construction  of 
vehicle  has  been  most  rapid,  we  find  that  the  bare  operating  cost  is  relatively  low. 
It  is  less  than  IS  cents  per  bus  mile  and  probably  does  not  exceed  by  more  than 
10  to  IS  per  cent  the  cost  per  car  mile  of  the  municipally  owned  surface  railways. 
The  excess  cost  is,  however,  more  than  offset  by  the  lower  interest  charges  on 
motor  bus  operation,  and  the  total  cost  per  bus  mile  probably  is  less  than  the  cost 
per  car  mile.  The  relative  seating  capacity  of  vehicles  used  in  this  comparison  is 
34  for  the  motor  bus  and  78  for  the  surface  car.  This  ratio  of  seating  capacity  brings 
the  total  cost  per  motor  bus  seat  mile  greater  than  tliat  of  the  car  seat  mile.  In 
Paris,  where  a  much  heavier  vehicle  of  about  the  same  capacity  is  operated  on 
pavements  less  smooth,  the  cost  per  mile  is  considerably  greater  than  in  London. 

Many  conditions  abroad  bearing  on  the  cost  of  operation  differ  from  those  in 
America ;  e.  g.,  the  comparatively  low  cost  of  labor  in  England,  particularly  mechanical 
labor,  of  which  so  much  is  required  in  motor  omnibus  operations.  The  mere  com- 
parison, therefore,  of  the  operating  costs  of  the  motor  bus  undertakings  here  with 
the  costs  abroad  would  serve  no  purpose,  although  some  idea  may  be  gained  by 
considering  the  cost  of  motor  bus  operation  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  as 
compared  with  that  of  surface  railways  in  the  same  borough.  Within  this  borough 
railway  operation  is  more  expensive  than  in  other  boroughs  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  principally  because  it  is  largely  carried  on  in  congested  districts  and  because 
the  maintenance  of  way  and  structures  of  the  underground  contact  system  is  more 
expensive  than  that  of  the  overhead  trolley.  In  comparison  with  this  expensive 
operation,  the  bare  operating  cost  of  the  motor  bus  per  mile,  although  gradually 
decreasing,  is  greater  than  that  of  the  railway  per  car  mile;  but  here  as  in  London 
the  cost  per  bus  mile,  when  interest  on  investment  is  included,  becomes  more  nearly 
equal  the"  cost  per  railway  car  mile. 

The  depreciation  of  the  motor  bus  is  much  more  r.ipid  than  that  of  the  street 
railway  car  and  other  railway  equipment  and  requires  provision  for  replacement 
funds  at  a  greater  rate.  The  total  amount  of  depreciation  may  not  exceed 
that  of  the  railway,  although  the  rate  is  higher,  because  the  value  to  which  the 
rate  is  applied  is  much  less.  In  London  the  life  of  motor  bus  equipment  is  estimated 
to  be  from  five  to  six  years,  and  in  New  York  depreciation  funds  are  provided 
sufficient  to  replace  the  vehicles  after  three  years'  use.  Proliably  the  average  life 
of  motor  buses  constructed  abroad  when  efficiently  maintained  is  much  longer  than 
five  years,  but  the  mechanical  improvement  in  type  and  construction  has  been  thus 
far  so  rapid  that  the  vehicles  become  obselele  before  they  are  worn  out. 


10 

The  cost  of  operation,  and  probably  the  rate  of  depreciation  as  well,  will  vary 
greatly  with  the  type  of  the  vehicle  and  the  character  of  the  pavement  upon  which 
it  operates.  The  large  differences  between  the  costs  of  the  various  motor  bus 
operations  leave  th*e  impression  that  ultimately  more  economical  results  will  be 
attained.  At  the  present  time,  however,  the  cost  seems  to  be  sufficiently  low  to 
insure    profitable   operation    in   certain    classes    of    service. 

Field  of  Utility. 
We  have   in   nearly   every  city   and   town   street   surface   railways  giving  on   the 
v.-hole    admirable    service.      The    question    which    may    suggest    itself    at    this    point, 
therefore,  is:   What  in  this  country  is  the  held  of  utility   for  the  motor  bus  in  its 
present   state   of    development? 

The  limiting  conditions  seem  to  be :  First,  the  rate  of  fare  to  insure  profitable 
results  in  the  operation  of  known  types  of  vehicle  in  this  country  probably  must 
be  slightly  greater  than  that  on  the  street  surface  railways,  or  if  the  same  fare 
is  charged,  then  the  average  length  of  ride  must  be  less;  second,  operations  should 
be  excluded  from  routes  where  the  motor  bus  would  seriously  compete  with  existing 
transit  facilities  and  should  be  allowed  only  on  such  routes  as  will  supplement  the 
railway  service.  Probably  there  is  no  other  public  utility  from  which  the  people  get  more 
for  their  money  than  from  the  street  railway,  and  a  general  right  to  operate  motor 
buses,  resulting  in  interference  and  competition  with  the  surface  railways,  would 
invite  disaster  to  this  efficient  public  service.  The  railway  and  the  motor  bus  should 
each  have  its  sphere  of  utility,  and  the  development  of  each  should,  to  conserve 
the  best  interests  of  all,  be  limited  to  its  own  field.  The  experience  of  most  cities 
has  been  that  the  greater  use  of  transit  facilities  is  stimulated  by  their  enlargement 
or  improvement.  Statistics  show  that  the  number  of  rides  per  capita  increases  under 
such  conditions  at  a  greater  rate  than  the  increases  of  population.  Therefore  if 
the  motor  bus  is  used  as  an  additional  transit  facility  it  will,  without  doubt,  find 
a  service  to  perform  in  carrying  the  increase  of  traffic  due  to  the  additional  facilities 
which  it  provides.  An  unfortunate  condition  exists  in  London,  where  the  extent 
and  direction  of  motor  bus  development  is  guided  only  by  the  operating  companies 
themselves.  Traffic  has  been  diverted  from  the  municipally  owned  railway  to  the 
motor  bus,  so  diminishing  the  railway  revenue  that  a  deficit  will  occur  in  the  near 
future  unless  relief  is  obtained  from  some  direction.  This  situation  is  due  largely 
to  the  lack  of  municipal  supervision  of  motor  bus  routes  and  to  the  peculiar  traffic 
conditions  already  described,  which  exclude  railways  from  the  business  center  of  the 
city.  In  Paris  there  is  no  competition  between  street  railways  and  motor  buses. 
Both  systems  are  owned  by  the  same  company  and  each  supplements  the  other. 
This  is  without  doubt  the  better  method. 

One  use  of  the  motor  bus  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  operation  in  New  York, 
where  the  fare  is  10  cents.  The  increasing  number  of  passengers  carried  indicates 
that   at   least   in  metropolitan  cities  there  is  a  demand   for   facilities  at  a   relatively 


11 

high  rate  of  fare.  This  operation,  because  of  the  difference  of  fare,  cannot  be  said 
to  be  in  direct  competition  with  the  street  railways.  In  the  congested  Borough  of 
Manhattan,  with  its  elevated  and  subsurface  rapid  transit  railways,  and  with  almost 
every  available  north-and-south  thoroughfare  occupied  by  street  railways,  there  are 
districts  of  dense  population  between  which  no  direct  transit  communication  exists. 
Large  areas  on  the  east  and  west  sides  of  Central  Park,  so  situated  that  their  centers 
are  less  than  one  mile  apart,  are  almost  as  completely  without  direct  connecting 
transit  facilities  as  though  they  were  separated  by  several  miles.  The  railway  com- 
panies have  made  no  effort  to  obtain  franchise  rights  to  give  such  service. 

There  are  many  suburban  communities  also  without  sufficient  local  transit 
facilities.  Jamaica  and  vicinity.  Long  Island,  may  be  used  as  an  illustration.  Though 
it  is  within  the  boundary  of  the  city  of  Greater  New  York  and  has,  with  the  imme- 
diately adjacent  development,  a  population  of  more  than  60,000,  this  community  is 
almost  entirely  without  means  of  public  conveyance  between  the  railroad  stations, 
business  districts  and  homes.  Real  estate  development  has  thus  been  limited  to  a 
district  less  than  a  mile  in  width  adjacent  to  and  along  each  side  of  the  Long  Island 
Railroad.  Extensive  public  improvements  have  been  made  on  adjacent  property,  well 
situated  for  home  development,  but  practically  no  building  has  taken  place  because 
of  the  lack  of  provision  for  local  transit.  The  rapid  transit  facilities  of  the  Long 
Island  Railroad  are  apparently  adequate  to  serve  a  much  larger  population.  By  this 
means  one  may  reach  the  business  districts  of  Manhattan  in  18  minutes  and  of 
Brooklyn  in  21  minutes.  A  study  of  the  situation  shows  that  there  is  probably  a 
sufficient  diversity  of  local  transit  business  to  warrant  motor  bus  operation  during  a 
greater  part  of  the  day,  securing  almost  full  use  of  the  vehicle  equipment.  The 
operation  of  a  reliable  motor  bus  service  upon  a  number  of  short  routes  connecting 
the  residential  with  the  business  sections  and  the  railway  stations  at  a  modest  fare 
would  not  only  open  property  well  situated  for  the  building  of  homes,  but  VN'ould 
greatly  add  to  the  convenience  of  the  present  inhabitants.  An  oinnibus  company 
is  now  preparing  to  operate  several  of  such  routes  in  the  belief  that  it  will  be  a 
prolitable  venture. 

Other  communities  elsewhere  within  the  limits  of  Greater  New  York  await  local 
transit  facilities.  If  the  motor  bus  can  be  operated  at  a  cost  such  as  to  enable  it  to 
supply  this  need,  there  is  an  immediate  lield  for  its  operation.  This  will  grow  with 
the  population  of  the  community. 

Municipal  Problems. 
The  rapid  strides  made  indicate  that  the  use  of  the  motor  vehicle  for  general 
passenger  service  is  in  its  infancy,  and  we  arc,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  on  the  eve 
of  a  considerable  development.  Such  development  should  be  encouraged  by  the 
municipal  authorities,  but  be  so  guided  that  the  public  interests  will  be  best  con- 
served. It  will  be  well  for  the  municipal  authorities  to  have  a  watchful  eye  on  the 
problems   which    must   be   confronted    in    its   accomplishtnent.     Mcnliun   has   already 


12 

been  made  of  possible  results  of  general  competition,  which  may  be  prevented,  and 
the  need  of  careful  selection  and  regulation  of  routes,  which  may  be  accomplished. 
This  may  be  done  by  the  enactment  of  proper  laws,  expert  surveys  of  each  situation 
and  the  exercise  of  good  judgment  on  the  part  of  those  having  authority. 

Other  problems  are  the  prevention  of  accidents  and  the  protection  of  road  pave- 
ment. These  already  exist  in  many  places  because  of  the  increasing  amount  of  motor 
traflFic,  and  without  doubt  are  capable  of  a  satisfactory  solution.  Figures  were  recently 
officially  reported  by  the  London  Traffic  Branch  of  the  Board  of  Trade  from  which 
the  following  comparison  may  be  made  between  the  number  of  the  fatal  and  non- 
fatal accidents  caused  by  motor  bus  and  street  railway  operation  for  one  year : 
The  motor  bus  killed  five  times  as  many  as  the  railway  per  million  miles  run ;  seven 
times  as  many  per  million  passengers  carried  and  eight  times  as  many  per  mile  of 
route  operated.  It  injured  three  and  one-third  times  as  many  as  the  street  railway 
per  million  miles  run ;  twice  as  many  per  million  passengers  carried  and  twice  as 
many  per  mile  of  route  operated.  These  comparisons  omit  one  important  feature; 
i.e.,  the  density  of  traffic  within  which  the  operation  of  each  system  takes  place. 
If  that  comparison  were  made,  probably  the  motor  bus  would  not  be  put  in  such  an 
undesirable  light,  since  the  density  of  the  vehicular  traffic  is  by  far  the  greatest  in 
the  central  portion  of  the  city,  where  a  large  percentage  of  the  bus  operation  takes 
place,  and  from  which  the  railway  is  excluded.  We  need  not  expect  the  operation 
of  motor  buses  in  such  large  numbers  in  the  most  congested  portions  of  American 
cities  as  in  London,  because  of  the  efficient  railway  systems  already  established,  and 
therefore  the  problem  of  protection  of  lives  will  not  be  so  difficult.  However,  the 
application  of  lifeguards  or  fenders  and  the  regulation  of  traffic  to  prevent  accidents 
are  important  enough  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  authorities  when  granting  rights 
for  the  motor  bus  operation. 

Street  pavement  is  to  the  motor  bus  what  the  steel  railway  track  is  to  the  railway 
car,  but  unlike  the  railway  track  it  is  provided  at  public  expense.  Its  preservation, 
therefore,  is  one  of  the  problems  which  will  confront  the  authorities  if  large  numbers 
of  heavy  motor  buses  are  to  be  operated,  particularly  in  suburban  districts,  where 
the  pavements  are  usually  less  permanent  than  in  city  streets  with  dense  vehicular 
traffic.  Probably  the  chief  destructive  effect  of  motor  traffic  on  roads  is  produced 
by  the  churning,  sheering  or  grinding  action  of  the  driving  wheels  on  the  road  surface. 
This  obviously  increases  with  the  weight  and  speed  of  the  driven  vehicle.  Weak 
places  also  in  the  foundation  are  quickly  discovered  by  heavy  and  fast-moving  traffic. 

The  capacity — hence  to  some  degree  the  weight — of  the  motor  bus  is  an  extremely 
important  consideration  from  the  standpoint  of  economy,  for  the  cost  of  operation  per 
vehicle  does  not  increase  at  the  .same  rate  as  the  number  of  persons  which  it  may 
carry.  Therefore,  where  the  volume  of  traffic  is  sufficient,  a  larger  vehicle  is  more 
desirable.  Speed  and  rapid  acceleration  up  to  certain  limits  are  also  essential  for 
passenger  service.  In  consequence,  reduction  of  weight  per  unit  capacity  or  other  im- 
provement in  design  must  be  depended  upon  to  keep  down  road  repair  cost  rather 


13 

than  reduction  of  speed  in  motor  bus  operation.  Speed,  while  important,  is  not  so 
essential  to  the  commercial  vehicle,  and  by  proper  speed  regulations  and  reasonable 
load  limits  some  of  the  road  destructive  effect  of  that  type  of  vehicle  may  be  eliminated. 

Heavy  commercial  motor  vehicles  are  making  their  appearance  in  increasing 
numbers  on  roads  of  all  kinds,  without  regulation  either  as  regards  weight  of  load  or 
rate  of  speed  except  the  general  speed  limits,  which  apply  to  all  vehicles,  designed  for 
the  protection  of  life  rather  than  the  preservation  of  roads.  Mechanical  traction  has 
attained  such  dimensions  in  so  short  a  period  that  road  surfaces  in  outlying  districts, 
at  least,  have  been  subjected  to  traffic  conditions  different  from  those  originally  in- 
tended. 

Important  regulations  have  only  recently  been  issued  affecting  Paris  and  the  sur- 
rounding country.  These  limit  the  load,  for  the  unit  tire  width,  fix  the  maximum 
gross  weight  of  commercial  vehicles  and  regulate  the  speed  according  to  the  varying 
gross  weight.  Public  vehicles,  however,  are  not  so  limited  as  to  speed  as  are  commer- 
cial vehicles.  Motor  buses  operated  in  London,  Paris  and  New  York  vary  in  weight 
from  219  pounds  to  365  pounds  for  each  passenger  which  the  vehicle  is  capable  of  car- 
rying. The  lightest  vehicle  is  used  in  London  and  weighs  about  3J4  tons  unloaded.  This 
is  the  maximum  weight  permitted  by  the  police  for  a  public  service  vehicle.  It  is  possible 
to  obtain  American-made  single  deck  buses,  24  passenger  seating  capacity,  that  probably 
do  not  exceed  in  weight  the  maximum  per  passenger  capacity  authorized  in  London. 
Whether  those  vehicles  will  prove  successful  in  the  severe  trials  of  motor  bus  work  is 
yet  to  be  proven. 

It  may  be  that  after  a  thorough  investigation,  rules  and  regulations  may  be  de- 
veloped which  will  so  regulate  the  weight,  speed  and  width  of  tire  of  both  commercial 
and  public  service  vehicles  that  practically  no  excessive  cost  of  road  maintenance  will 
result.  Certainly  regulations  affecting  commericial  vehicles  may  be  devised  which 
would  result  in  less  destructive  effect  on  roads.  However,  such  rules,  if  applied  to 
motor  buses,  might  be  so  severe  with  respect  to  speed  as  to  destroy  their  usefulness  for 
passenger  service.  There  is  a  great  need  for  a  careful  research  into  the  whole  problem 
of  mechanical  traction  on  roads,  particularly  the  effect  of  vehicle  weight  and  speed  upon 
the  cost  of  road  maintenance.  If  it  is  shown  that  the  motor  bus  is  particularly  destruc- 
tive to  roads,  the  operators  should  pay  something  toward  road  maintenance. 

Co-operntion  between  the  municipal  authorities  and  the  motor  bus  operators,  and 
between  the  different  municipalities  as  well,  is  much  needed,  for  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  this  new  facility,  both  in  its  initiation  and  during  subsequent  operation.  Fol- 
lowing arc  the  apparent  essential  general  features  of  procedure  to  be  observed  in  the 
beginning:  First,  the  enactment  of  general  incorporation  laws  to  provide  for  the 
formation  of  operating  companies.  These  should  give  to  some  local  governing  body  tlie 
authority  to  fix  routes  and  to  supervise  operation.  Second,  a  thorough  study  of  trans- 
portation and  traffic  conditions  and  of  the  needs  of  the  community  in  wliich  the 
operation  is  proposed,  to  aid  in  the  selection  of  routes  upon  which  transit  facilities 
are  required  and  upon  which  there  will  not  be  undue  competition  with  existing  facilities. 


14 

Third,  the  collection  and  preservation  of  data  pertaining  to  (o)  cost  of  operation,  (fc) 
rate  of  depreciation  of  vehicles,  (c)  effect  on  different  classes  of  road  surfaces  and 
foundations,  and  (d)  efficiency  of  difTerent  types  of  vehicles.  Fourth,  the  limitation  of 
the  operating  rights  to  a  comparatively  short  period  until  more  is  learned  of  the 
capabilities  of  the  motor  bus  and,  the  eflfect  of  its  operation.  The  Bureau  of  Franchises 
would  be  glad  to  receive  any  data  in  relation  to  this  subject,  to  the  end  that  the, 
problems  of  motor  bus  operation  may  be  successfully  worked  out. 


